Something that I've always been curious about, although not ambivalent about, is the inclusion of emails and email correspondences in SCP articles. I was just wondering, how do you headcanon their realistic inclusion in a scientific document/executive brief? None of my headcanons are really working enough to make me feel comfortable about including them, so I was hoping I could borrow one of yours.

I have emails in SCP-3101 — scroll to the "Show Ethics Committee Correspondence Records" collapsibles to see how they're formatted. I use ".scp.fo" in the address, but .fo is actually the main domain for the Faroe Islands IRL, so now that I think about it I maybe should change it to .scp since that's a nonexistent domain…

SCP files which include in-universe elements that recognize an in-universe reader are incredibly common, and easy enough to reconcile, for me at least.

I mean, any time you click a collapsible which "requires" "authorization or identiffication", that right there is assuming an in-universe reader. Emails are merely a step up from that.

I really headcanon these as not showing the database entry as it would appear for any random schmuck, but one online session of a particular user accessing the page.

This then could be taken to the absolute extreme, by showcasing not just one user's online session as they access an SCP file, but by giving actual ouside context to the (in-universe) readers actions prior to their session to begin with! I've done this a couple times myself, most notably in my 001 entry.

You can see a much less noticable example of showcasing the actions or placement of readers in SCP-2204, which is what originally inspired me to go the full 9 wrg extending an SCP file past the boundaries of a computer.

This is, of course, assuming you mean interdepartmental correspondences before/after/in the middle of SCP files, and not emails collected as, say, evidence or seized as information on the skip in question.

TLDR: It's not so much something you headcanon, and moreso simply recognizing that they're stories told with a different perspective. It's the difference between using 3rd and 1st person, just applied to an epistalory story format.

how do you headcanon their realistic inclusion in a scientific document/executive brief?

Easy. SCPs aren't scientific documents or executive briefs, they're short stories. If they were any kind of "realistic" version of either, they'd be dozens of times longer and boring as hell.

That said, I figure that beyond the basic format (number, object class, SCProcedures, description) and security stuff, there isn't much actual guidance/rules in-universe on what form an SCP should take, and there are a lot of individual differences based on what researcher is writing it. So some researchers might summarize documents or exchanges, while others might be thinking "they need the whole context" and attach them, and others just might not have time or have other reasons (e.g., they're pissed about what happened in the email). So, some people might just copy/paste a whole email thread into the official document.

If it gets more complicated, like an email to you as a reader… it's a story.